JUDGMENT By Court.-These three aforesaid appeals arose from the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Sri Radha Mohan Tiwari, Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.-V), Hazaribagh in Sessions Trial No. 167 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the four persons namely Rupial Mahto @ Mehta, Biru Paswan @ Biruwa, Govind @ Goma Mahto @ Mehta and Shambhu Ravidas have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 200/- each. They have been further convicted under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced again for life imprisonment. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of the fardbeyan of Baldeo Mahto (the deceased) dated 14.7.1996. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant was waiting for a train at Koderma Railway Station on 14.7.1996, as he had to go to Bombay. In the meantime, Rupial Mahto, Shambhu Ravidas, Goma Mahto and Biru and one unknown person reached there and all of them caughthold of informant and brought the informant to an already waiting Tata 407 vehicle. They brought the informant to the house of Rupial Mahto at Village-Mahkaul at about 6.30-7 P.M. Thereafter, they tied his hands and legs and laid him down in the courtyard of Rupial Mahto. Then accused Shambhu Ravidas caughthold of the right hand of the informant and Rupial Mahto inflicted sword blow on his right hand chopping of the right hand completely and blood started oozing out. Goma, Biru and other unknown persons were catching hold of the informant and Shambhu Ravidas and Rupial Mahto inflicted sword blow on both his hands and legs. As a result of which both legs were severely injured. Biru hold the head and thrashed it repeatedly against pucca ground causing injuries in the head. The police, alerted by somebody, rushed to the spot and recorded the fardbeyan of the deceased. He was, thereafter, brought to the Hospital. Informant succumbed to his injury, in course of treatment he died. The cause of incident was that accused Rupial Mahto had wrong suspicion against the informant of stealing his jeep. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was lodged. The police after investigation. submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 and 120B of the I.P.C. against the appellants and one Khemlal Mahto. 5. The cause of incident was that accused Rupial Mahto had wrong suspicion against the informant of stealing his jeep. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, formal F.I.R. was lodged. The police after investigation. submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 302, 201/34 and 120B of the I.P.C. against the appellants and one Khemlal Mahto. 5. Charges under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants. All the accused persons were put on trial. In their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all of them claimed to be innocent. They denied to have committed any offence. 6. The prosecution in order to prove the charges against the appellants altogether examined seven witnesses. P.W. 1.,Dr. Prem Das is said to have first examined the deceased when he was brought to the Hospital with injuries, P.W. 2-Md: Mustaq, ASI, who had recorded the fardbeyan, P.W. 3-Dr. Suresh Kr. Sinha, had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W. 4-Jugeshwar Giri, Hawaldar, who was one of the members of the police party who arrived at the spot, P.W. 5-Niranjan Kr. Singh, Constable. who accompanied the police party, P.W. 6-Arun Kr. Singh, S.I., claims to be the I.O. of the case, P.W. 7-Vishundeo Mahto, A.S.I.. was produced as a formal witness to prove material Exhibit-I (Sword). By way of documentary evidence, the prosecution produced seizure list as Ext.-1, Fardbeyan as Ext.-2. formal F.I.R. as Ext.-3. post mortem report as Ext.-4, Ext.-5-is a forwarding letter/application for sending the sword to forensic lab for chemical examination, Ext.-6-is the endorsement on the material Exhibit-I (Sword), Ext.-7-is the original case diary. 7. Learned trial court on conclusion of the trial held the appellant guilty for the charges under Sections 364/34 and 302/ 34 I.P.C. Court below heavily relied on the testimonies of P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 6 in coming to the said conclusion. According to the learned trial court, the other witnesses also corroborated the prosecution version and on that basis found and held Rupial Mahto, Biru Paswan, Govind @ Goma Mahto and Shambhu Ravidas guilty for committing the offences under Sections 364/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code but acquitted Khemlal Mahto. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order of the learned trial court, three appeals have been filed. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment/order of the learned trial court, three appeals have been filed. Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2003 is filed by Goma @ Govind Mahto @ Mehta and Biruwa @ Biru Paswan, Criminal Appeal No. 809 of 2003 is filed by Shambhu Ravidas and Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2003 is filed by Rupial Mahto @ Mehta. 9. As all the appeals are directed against the same judgment of court below, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 10. We have heard learned counsel for different appellants at length and also heard learned A.P.P. and thoroughly scrutinized material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants have assailed the said judgment of court below on the following grounds: (i) The very foundation of the case, the first report which could have been the fardbeyan and which can be treated as F.I.R. under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. has been suppressed by the prosecution. (ii) Fardbeyan (Ext.-2) which is on record is a subsequent statement and at best it could be said to have been statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and on basis thereof the case proceeded. The very foundation, as such is missing, the entire prosecution is vitiated by suppressing of the earlier version. The defence has been highly prejudiced and the conviction and sentence based thereupon is unsustainable on the said ground alone. (iii) There was two days delay in dispatching the F.I.R. to the court which also cast serious doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version. (iv) The prosecution failed to produce the map of the place of occurrence, the serologist report, the injury report prepared by the Doctor (P .W. 1) who had first examined the victim. Non-production of station diary and to mount all the statement of Baldeo Mahto made before P.W. 2, lead to adverse inference to the benefit of the accused persons as per Section 114(G) of the Evidence Act. (v) There are two places of occurrence. One is Railway Station and another is village. But not a single independent witness come forward to support the prosecution case. There is not a single independent witness either to corroborate the prosecution version. There is not an iota of evidence on the first part of story of kidnapping the deceased from Koderma Railway Station. One is Railway Station and another is village. But not a single independent witness come forward to support the prosecution case. There is not a single independent witness either to corroborate the prosecution version. There is not an iota of evidence on the first part of story of kidnapping the deceased from Koderma Railway Station. In absence of any evidence in support of first part, there is no foundation for believing the second part of the story. (vi) Rupial Mahto and Shambhu Ravidas are said to have inflicted repeated sword injuries on legs but single injury on each of the leg were found by the Doctor which falsify the prosecution version. (vii) There is no eye-witness in this case. There is no sufficient link to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court without taking into consideration the said legal lacunae, has erroneoulsy arrived at the conclusion holding the appellants of the three appeals guilty and convicting them as aforesaid. 11. Learned A.P.P., on the other hand, submitted that though the fardbeyan (Ext.-2) of the deceased is not only the foundation but after each date it is admissible as evidence under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. The said fardbeyan supported by P.W. 2 as also by P.W. 3 fully established the guilt of the appellants. There was a contradiction here and there but looking to circumstance, some minor contradictions bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses. The ante mortem injuries found in the autopsy of the body of the deceased clearly corroborate the 'injuries inflicted by sword (Material Ext.-1). Learned trial court meticulously appraised the evidences and rightly held the appellants guilty. Learned court below has given benefit of doubt to the accused Khemlal Mahto. There is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned trial court. 12. On perusal of the evidence, we are however unable to uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of learned trial court for the following reasons: (i) P.W. 2 in paragraph 24 had clearly stated that the statement of the informant was recorded by him at P.O. but the said statement has not been brought on record. There is a substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that something has been suppressed and has not been brought to light. . There is a substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that something has been suppressed and has not been brought to light. . (ii) There is two days delay in dispatching the F.I.R. and for that there is no explanation. It raises an inference that F.I.R. was prepared ante dated. (iii) There is a chance of deliberation, consultation and false implication and such circumstances raises serious doubts. (iv) In Meharaj Singh VS. State of U.P. (1994)5 SCC 188 , the apex court held that on account of such infirmity, the F.I.R. loses its authenticity and it is not safe to rely on such prosecution case. We further find substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that not a single independent witness had been examined in this case to corroborate the prosecution version. On going through the evidences we find that the witnesses have clearly stated about the presence of several persons when the occurrence took place at Railway Station and also in the village with sizeable population but not a single witness has come to support the prosecution version. Further in this case, injury report prepared by P.W. 1 who is said to be examined the informant has not been produced. The station diary and the report of serologist also have not been produced. The seizure list has I not been produced. (v) The law is settled in favour of the appellants, which provide, that for suppressing material evidence adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution. There is mention that the' seizure was made in presence of witness of two persons but the seizure list witnesses also have not been examined. The I.O. stated to have seized the sword on 14.7.1996 whereas the witnesses have put their signature on 15.7.1996. Admittedly there is no eye witness. (vi) In the fardbeyan, it has come that two persons Rupial Mahto and Shambhu Ravidas inflicted the repeated sword injuries on legs but only one sword has been recovered and one injury on each leg was found in the medical examination. 13. In view, of the discussion made above, we find no cogent evidence on record to support the charges against the appellants and sustain their conviction. 14. We, therefore, acquit them of all the charges. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant(s) abovenamed and allow these appeals. 13. In view, of the discussion made above, we find no cogent evidence on record to support the charges against the appellants and sustain their conviction. 14. We, therefore, acquit them of all the charges. We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant(s) abovenamed and allow these appeals. The appellant(s) abovenamed who is/are in custody shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.